State data officers call for better funding and more clarity

As state governments work to build a future where data and artificial intelligence help innovate daily operations, enhance service delivery and inform decision-making, a strong data program will be critical to get there, one expert says. 

“Strong data leadership in state government has never been more critical,” said Isaac Yoder, program manager of the Beeck Center’s data labs and chief data officer network. “Data has been increasingly like the lifeblood of state governance, and states’ data strategies have been maturing really quickly over the past few years.”  

The expansion of digital services and adoption of technologies like AI “really depends on a very important, but very simple, foundation of reliable and well-governed data. Without those sorts of innovations, you are going to fall short,” he explained. 

That’s where the position of chief data officer comes into play, as these roles become “increasingly critical” for “leading on data sharing and analytics, developing responsible AI policy and [supporting] data literacy and cross-agency collaboration,” Yoder said. 

A new report released last week offers insights to how states are structuring the CDO position and the challenges of enforcing it. The findings are based on a survey of 27 chief data officers conducted by the Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation and the National Association of State Chief Information Officers earlier this year.

The survey results indicate that CDO roles are “maturing quickly but evenly across the country … with some states building these multimillion dollar programs with broad authority across the state, while others still operate with very little authority or budget,” Yoder said. 

The majority of states have a CDO position, for example, but their approaches to establishing it have differed. For example, 44% of respondents said that the CDO was established by statute in their state, and 19% said it was created through an executive order, according to the report. 

Less than 20% of chief data officers said the position was established under a directive from their chief information officer, and about a quarter of respondents reported their government had no formal method to create the position, the survey found. Respondents were able to select multiple options.

A formal approach to creating the CDO and its responsibilities and authority, like through legislation, is a critical lever for state leaders to realize the position’s potential for improving the government's data program, Yoder said. 

“When the scope of authority is not clear for the CDO office … they have to spend a lot of time making the case for their office rather than improving how data is used in states,” Yoder said. As a result, “their job has to get done through … personal influence and internal momentum, rather than on institutional backing and mandate.” 

Indeed, 15% of respondents said they currently had no established authority within their department or government, according to survey data. The majority of respondents — 67% — said their authority covered the state executive branch, and 11% of them only have authority over their own agency. 

Only 7% of participants reported that they had authority over the state executive, legislative and judicial branches as well as independent state agencies, according to the survey. 

Respondents called on state leaders to consider how they can allocate funding and other resources dedicated to building up the CDO role and agency to help formalize its position in government, according to the report. For instance, current CDO budgets range from $325,000 to $25 million, primarily supported by general funds and service fees, but six respondents said they had no budget at all. 

Committed staffing, tools and infrastructure are also critical to supporting the CDO’s mission, and “multiple CDOs emphasized the need to define the full scope of the position, so that it encompasses governance, strategy, analytics and technology,” the report stated. 

Additionally, respondents underscored the importance for leaders to embrace the value of data management and strategy to government as whole instead of just in a technical sense, Yoder said. 

“CDOs typically have the core competence in leadership, collaboration, relationship building and commitment to public service,” he explained. Indeed, the report found that the educational and professional backgrounds of CDOs are increasingly diverse, with respondents reporting they had also had experience in fields like electrical engineering, public health, political science, social work, library science and others. 

The expanding role and backgrounds of CDOs can help the state “be a lot more efficient and thoughtful about how it’s using data,” Yoder said. 

To further support the comprehensive creation and execution of a CDO, government leaders should look to existing models and frameworks from other states and consider multistate relationships to foster idea sharing. 

Respondents also underscored the value of leveraging insights and partnerships with existing tech leaders within the state, such as CIOs, chief information security officers or chief privacy officers. 

Ultimately, Yoder said “this report is a useful starting point for understanding how the [CDO] is evolving, and it really shows that the field needs more durable authority, support and funding across the country.”